Note: Javascript is disabled or is not supported by your browser. For this reason, some items on this page will be unavailable. For more information about this message, please visit this page: About CDC.gov.

Purpose

Tony Malinauskas called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. The purpose of the meeting was to 1) discuss the purpose of the EEWG, 2) receive a presentation on selected local air emissions sources in relation to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Public Health Assessment (PHA), 3) discuss the status of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's (ATSDR) PHAs, and 4) talk about the new process for distributing the PHAs.

Tony Malinauskas asked about the meeting minutes from the November 15, 2004, meeting. Bill Taylor said that minor grammatical and wording changes were made. Dr. Malinauskas said that the minutes would stand as issued with the noted changes.

Environmental characterization data are defined as information that "is provided in

site-specific remedial investigation (RI) reports,

preliminary assessments,

geological surveys, and

site inspection reports obtained from EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] and pertinent state and local environmental departments.

A site visit, conducted by ATSDR staff, is also an important source of environmental characterization data."

The Exposure Evaluation Work Group will use this definition as the basis for its activities.

(This work group will include the former Public Health Assessment Work Group minus the community concerns and the health outcome data portions of a PHA [public health assessment].)

James Lewis said that the EEWG would use this definition as the basis for its activities. Mr. Lewis explained that after reading ATSDR's Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual, he noted that there were three components of a PHA. He thought that there was a "token response" given to two areas covered under the PHA. Therefore, this was broken into three components based on the manual's areas of responsibilities.

James Lewis believed that this work group was supposed to focus on evaluating environmental characterization data as defined above. He said that people with concerns about different issues were attending meetings, and that in order to address these concerns, the first phase established these work groups so that different work groups could focus on associated concerns.

James Lewis explained that the second phase was to look at why they were not reaching work group members, ORRHES members, or the public. He said that the aim was to correct these past problems, address why they were not "drawing people to the table," and handle how to evaluate public health concerns. He added that during this second phase, they were to correct what they considered to be weaknesses with how meetings were run and to conduct outreach efforts to bring more people to the meetings.

James Lewis thought that a program was needed for the chairs to look at the process they use to evaluate PHAs and exposure data. He said that they currently "shuffle out information" and assume that if people do not attend meetings that they are uninterested. As a result, Mr. Lewis said that some people at ORRHES meetings do not know "what is going on." Mr. Lewis said that the new work group was going to look at this process, figure out weaknesses, develop an evaluation process, and interact with more lay people. He believed that leadership was needed to bring this about, but he was "saddened" that this did not occur. He said that many people did not attend meetings with the former Public Health Assessment Work Group (PHAWG) because the context dealt only with technical aspects.

James Lewis presented the EEWG with a slide entitled, "Social Influence: Its Basic Forms." He noted that this discussed leadership and pointed out the key areas regarding social influence that were needed to bring people together. He explained that social influence starts with "position power," which includes "legitimate power," "reward power," "coercive power," and "information power." He said that they have a lot of "technocrats" who can follow this well, but that they needed a way to reach people who are unfamiliar with their activities and do not attend meetings. Mr. Lewis said that more work was needed to lay out the aims and purposes of the EEWG; however, he flagged what he believed to be the weaknesses and areas where additional work was needed.

James Lewis continued that he and those he has communicated with believe that they need to develop a process to present information other than "just passing out data." Instead, they needed to present information in an "easily understood" and "digestible" format. He noted that ATSDR has had weaknesses in this area also, and believed that the agency had been looking for leadership that could fill this role and help them avoid having "gridlock" as in the past. Mr. Lewis added that if they do not address these issues, then they will continue to have "gridlock." He had given this to Bill Cibulas (ATSDR), identified some of the issues, and asked Dr. Cibulas how he would address the situation.

James Lewis summarized that the aim of the EEWG was to: improve the process, make information more user-friendly, bring more people in, identify existing weaknesses, and use their skill sets to bring the group together. He believed that they needed to make an honest effort to look at the health concerns and other data. He added that if health outcome data do not exist, then ATSDR should "reflect the weaknesses." He did not think that the agency should "push it aside" or ignore the issue. He believed that this was the reason that people were frustrated. He added that he has seen this before, where ATSDR is able to "Name That Tune" with the fewest notes.

Discussion

Tony Malinauskas thought that James Lewis's information was "good," but that it did not "tell him anything." He added that he had read the definition numerous times, yet it did not indicate what the EEWG "ought to be doing." James Lewis thought that the group would determine this, but that he had some ideas. Mr. Lewis believed that they needed to "do more than look at data and pass out data" and make data more user-friendly. He thought that they needed to create a list of the public's issues and concerns, as well as the issues from ORRHES, and make sure that these are addressed in presentations. Mr. Lewis thought that they needed to continually refine their approach for reaching the public and ORRHES members. He believed that the chair should be involved so that people "do not just mindlessly vote for something, abstain, or withdraw" when they are unclear on an issue. He added that they needed to make sure that 1) the efforts of the other work groups were "rolled into this package," 2) questions and concerns were answered in a form for both technical and lay people, and 3) ensure data contain technical accuracy.

Tony Malinauskas had thought about "what EEWG should be doing." Because the work group is an arm of ORRHES, he proposed that the purpose of the EEWG was to provide guidance to ORRHES relative to PHAs concerning the 1) completeness of available data regarding the exposure pathways, 2) soundness of analytical approach used to evaluate data, and 3) adequacy to which community concerns are addressed. He added that these needed to be in terms that the entire ORRHES could understand. Mr. Lewis agreed with Dr. Malinauskas, but added that an area of weakness deals with responding to issues raised. He said that ATSDR cannot address every issue, but that the agency should address those that are feasible. He believed that ATSDR should address each issue raised (one to one) by EPA and not use general statements or summaries to address these and other issues in the PHA. Mr. Lewis added that all of the recommendations raised by the Oak Ridge Dose Reconstruction should be addressed as well. Dr. Malinauskas agreed.

Kowetha Davidson discussed areas of weaknesses. She said that they probably needed a better description of differences because when they have differences, they do not mean that they have weaknesses. James Lewis agreed and added that he would have areas of difference/weaknesses. He said that some areas of difference are perceived as weakness.

Kowetha Davidson asked what Mr. Lewis meant by addressing comments. She said that this would not necessarily mean making a change, but that if you looked at it and evaluated it, you could still agree with what was done. She said that if a comment is addressed, it did not necessarily mean that they had to make a change to the document. Bill Taylor added that there would hopefully be an opportunity for the EEWG to review ATSDR's responses to comments that were included within the PHA prior to its final release.

TSCA Incinerator PHA: Overview of Selected Local Air Emissions Sources

Presenter (via telephone): John Wilhelmi, ERG

John Wilhelmi explained that his role in ATSDR's work has been primarily to provide technical assistance in evaluating the TSCA Incinerator. According to Mr. Wilhelmi, the goal of his presentation was to provide perspective on the scale of operations at, and the air emissions from, the TSCA Incinerator and other local sources. The reason that he was reviewing local emissions sources was in response to several questions asked at the previous EEWG meeting. He added that even though the PHA focuses on the incinerator itself, people are ultimately exposed to pollutants that are emitted from all local sources.

John Wilhelmi presented the emissions sources that were considered. These were identified via searching EPA databases of industrial facilities in the Oak Ridge area.

Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) facilities

Power plants (Tennessee Valley Authority [TVA] facilities)

Local waste management facilities

TSCA Incinerator (on the ORR)

Diversified Scientific Services Incorporated (DSSI) (5 to 10 miles south of the TSCA Incinerator)

Duratek (in Oak Ridge)

Other incinerator facilities

John Wilhelmi emphasized that comparisons between these facilities must consider that they have quite different operations. He noted that "perfect analogies really don't exist here." He said that it is true that these facilities have similar operations as most are related to combustion; however, there are notable differences. Mr. Wilhelmi explained that a power plant is intended to burn fuel to harness energy; whereas, an incinerator is typically designed to destroy waste without releasing contaminants or releasing as few contaminants as possible into the environment.

John Wilhelmi discussed the amounts of materials processed to give an impression of how the scales of operations differ across the facilities. He provided annual data for power plants and waste management facilities in the area. He stated that the power plant data consisted of amounts of coal that selected TVA power plants process or burn. He obtained the data from TVA's Web site. Mr. Wilhelmi obtained waste management facility data from EPA's Bi-Annual Reporting System (BRS), which provides data for amounts of hazardous waste that certified facilities' manage.

Power plants

Kingston plant: 5,110,000 tons of coal per year

Bull Run plant: 2,299,500 tons of coal per year

John Sevier plant: 2,080,500 tons of coal per year

Waste management facilities

TSCA Incinerator: 680 tons of waste per year

DSSI: 499 tons of waste per year

Duratek: 83 tons of waste per year

John Wilhelmi pointed out that the amount of waste processed at these waste management facilities "dwarfs in comparison" to the amount of coal that the power plants process. Mr. Wilhelmi explained that these data are only presented to provide an impression of how scales of operations differ across these facilities. Mr. Wilhelmi said that the average amount of coal burned in 1 day at the Kingston Power Plant is about the same as the total amount of hazardous waste that the TSCA Incinerator has treated over the last 15 years. He noted that it was "not entirely appropriate to compare burning coal to burning hazardous waste." However, this provided a general sense of the scale; it was not presented so that people could draw inferences of emissions that might result.

John Wilhelmi noted that during his last two visits to Oak Ridge, work group members had inquired about other incinerator facilities in the area. Mr. Wilhelmi contacted EPA officials who are responsible for tracking these facilities. Reportedly, there are no medical incinerators or municipal solid waste incinerators in the area that process enough waste to trigger EPA's regulatory oversight. If other operations exist in the area, Mr. Wilhelmi stated that they "almost certainly process extremely small quantities of waste."

John Wilhelmi discussed Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) emissions data. He explained that facilities in certain industries are required to disclose their environmental releases of selected chemicals to the EPA and the public on an annual basis. While he thought that the TRI database was "extremely useful," he noted that there were important limitations to consider. First, radionuclides, which are a concern with the TSCA Incinerator, are not subject to TRI reporting requirements. Second, disclosure is only required if chemical usage exceeds certain thresholds. Consequently, according to Mr. Wilhelmi, a facility's TRI data are generally an incomplete account of the chemicals released. However, this does account for the toxic chemicals that the facility uses and releases in the greatest amounts. Third, data are self-reported and are of unknown quality.

John Wilhelmi presented a table that showed air emissions in pounds per year (lbs/year) as reported to TRI in 2001. The table identified the emissions for 25 chemicals at five different facilitiesEast Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP, including emissions from the incinerator and other operations at ETTP), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Y-12 Plant, DSSI, and Kingston Steam Plant. Mr. Wilhelmi pointed out that the data contained within the table are self-reported data. He also noted that the table contained many blank cells, which indicated that the facility did not report data for that chemical during that year. Presumably, according to Mr. Wilhelmi, this meant that the facility did not use the chemical in high enough quantities to trigger TRI reporting.

John Wilhelmi pointed out that only two chemicals were reported at ETTP for 2001hydrochloric acid and lead compounds. Mr. Wilhelmi said that 25 lbs/year of hydrochloric acid were reported for ETTP, which he indicated was "negligible" compared to emissions from the Y-12 and Kingston Plants. Lead compounds, which include lead and chemicals that contain lead, represented 58 lbs/year from the entire ETTP complexabout four times less than the amount released from the Kingston Steam Plant. Mr. Wilhelmi said that it is unclear what portion of these chemicals was emitted from the TSCA Incinerator. John Wilhelmi explained that operations at the ETTP complex "undoubtedly emitted additional chemicals, but apparently none were used in amounts requiring DOE [U.S. Department of Energy] to submit" TRI reports.

John Wilhelmi brought the group's attention to the "total emissions" row on the table, which displayed the total TRI reportable chemicals for the five facilities. Mr. Wilhelmi said that overall, the Kingston Power Plant had "far greater emissions." However, he said that it was important to note that more than 90% of the Kingston Power Plant's emissions are from hydrochloric and sulfuric acids, which are both "considered less toxic than some of the other chemicals shown." Although the total emissions on the table gives the impression that the Kingston Power Plant has the greatest emissions, Mr. Wilhelmi wanted to note that TRI does not include the "entire universe of chemicals" or all of the chemicals of concern particularly related to the TSCA Incinerator (e.g., radionuclides). Also, Mr. Wilhelmi stated that Kingston Power Plant emissions are from extremely tall stacks, which tend to have lower air quality impacts than shorter stacks.

John Wilhelmi presented the following "take home messages:"

The local power plants appear to have much larger scale operations than the waste management facilities, but the power plants are not processing hazardous waste.

These are "inherently different facilities."

Air emissions from the TVA Kingston Plant far exceed air emissions from the TSCA Incinerator and other local waste management facilities, but the power plant's emissions are dominated by two chemicals (sulfuric and hydrochloric acids) and emissions are released through very tall stacks.

The elevated release height causes contaminants to disperse more in air before reaching the ground. Therefore, data can be "misleading" if atmospheric fate and transport are not considered.

The air sampling and ambient air monitoring data that ATSDR evaluated in the TSCA Incinerator PHA inherently captures the air quality impacts from all local sources.

Devices used to measure the contamination in the air that they breathe tell them the exposure levels, despite where the contamination originated.

Emissions data that helped direct an evaluation can become "in a sense" a "moot point" when they look at "what is actually in the air that people are breathing."

John Wilhelmi discussed how information on emissions, fate and transport, and ambient air monitoring has to be weighed together to reach scientifically defensible conclusions.

Discussion

Tony Malinauskas asked if the TSCA Incinerator was included within the ETTP TRI data. John Wilhelmi replied that the data included TSCA and all other ETTP operations.

Tony Malinauskas asked if polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were listed. John Wilhelmi replied that PCBs were not listed for any of the facilities, which seemed "peculiar" to him. Jeff Hill asked if this would be addressed. Dr. Malinauskas asked if PCBs are covered in the PHA; Mr. Wilhelmi said that they would be evaluated and included.

Bill Taylor asked John Wilhelmi to comment on the footnote regarding dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. Mr. Wilhelmi explained that the TRI program recently decreased its reporting threshold for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds to 1 gram. Therefore, it has to be reported if a facility used at least 1 gram per year. He separated these because EPA separates them. He said that 2.57 grams of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are added to the total for the Kingston Steam Plant, yet the total emissions remain basically the same.

Tony Malinauskas asked if dioxin and dioxin-like compounds were reported for ETTP. John Wilhelmi said that they were not, which he presumed to be because the total amount was below 1 gram per year. He believed that DOE has conducted stack tests for dioxins on the TSCA Incinerator every 5 years since the incinerator began operating.

Pete Malmquist had thought that mercury was a heavier component of coal and questioned the 450 lbs/year out of 5,926,225 total emissions. He thought that this was a very low number. He asked if this was a result of the scrubber efficiencies and/or other reasons. Because the focus of the PHA is on the TSCA Incinerator, John Wilhelmi had not conducted an extremely careful review of the power plant. He added that TVA may have air pollution controls, but that he was unsure.

Pete Malmquist asked if these data would be in the PHA. John Wilhelmi said that they planned to include them. He added that this work was conducted as a result of requests made during the last EEWG meeting.

Tony Malinauskas believed that the information provided a "good basis for comparison" and he agreed with the caveats that John Wilhelmi provided before presenting the data.

Discussion of PHA Status

K-25: Danny Sanders asked about the progress of the K-25 PHA and the status of ATSDR answering his questions related to K-25 and Happy Valley. Mr. Hanley said that as a result of ATSDR's screening and evaluation of all other contaminants, the K-25 PHA will evaluate uranium and fluorides. The PHA has undergone a data validation review and gone through DOE classification. ATSDR has received comments from these other agencies, and the document is being modified based on these comments. Following these changes, the document will undergo an ATSDR management and editorial review. After which, the PHA will be released for public comment (probably in late Spring 2005). He added that Mr. Sanders's issues are documented and answered in the PHA. Mr. Sanders asked if all of his issues and questions will be answered. Mr. Hanley said that ATSDR will respond to Mr. Sanders's letter and e-mails regarding his concerns about his family living in Happy Valley.

Danny Sanders asked if ATSDR was evaluating any contaminants in addition to uranium and hexafluoride that might have been released during those years. Jack Hanley replied that those were evaluated previously. He explained that the state evaluated those contaminants in two different screening evaluations. Mr. Sanders asked if the evaluations looked at the same years that he questioned; Mr. Hanley said that these looked at the same years. Mr. Hanley explained that ATSDR reviewed the state's screenings and had reviewers who analyzed the screenings. As a result, ATSDR identified these as the contaminants released from K-25 that needed further evaluation. Mr. Hanley stated that "no other contaminants released from K-25 were found to be a hazard." He added that the primary releases from K-25 were uranium, which was evaluated by the state, but fluoride was not evaluated. Because of the agency's past evaluations at gaseous diffusion plants, ATSDR recognized that fluoride could be a potential problem and wanted to evaluate it.

Pete Malmquist asked Jack Hanley about his statement that only two contaminants could cause public health concern. Dr. Malmquist recalled that the state of Tennessee had indicated that no discharges from K-25 would cause public health concern. He asked if "only fluoride and uranium discharges...could potentially cause public health concern." Mr. Hanley said that Dr. Malmquist was correct. Mr. Hanley also clarified that other radiological by-products were released when uranium was released, which were evaluated in the state's screening assessments. ATSDR also considers these in its PHA when estimating radiological doses.

Danny Sanders asked if the Dose Reconstruction considered the population at Happy Valley. Jack Hanley was not sure, but ATSDR looked at this again in its own analysis.
Jack Hanley said that Dr. Mark Evans (ATSDR) would present the next PHA in preliminary form, which would be the K-25 PHA. He said that Dr. Evans would outline his work, as well as Paul Charp's and Mr. Hanley's work on the PHA, before anything is finalized internally. Danny Sanders asked when Dr. Evans would present. After some discussion, it was determined that the third Monday in February was a holiday. The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for February 14, 2005. Mr. Hanley would check with Dr. Evans about this meeting date to ensure that he is available.

Jeff Hill said that most people had been under the impression that only uranium was released from the K-25 facility, but they found out later that this was not the case. Mr. Hill said that there was recycling and other elements that were "blended" at the facility. He questioned if this would change the sampling or if this was taken into account. Jack Hanley said that this was taken into account, and that it was why the state conducted two screenings. He said that by 2000, many contaminants were unclassified and the state conducted a second evaluation. Mr. Hill asked if the data changed. Mr. Hanley said that the data did not change because they had the original data. He added that this was also evaluated by SENES and has undergone a couple of reviews. Bill Taylor asked if this was part of the Dose Reconstruction. Mr. Hanley said that Dr. Taylor was correct and that this occurred between the first and second phase of the Oak Ridge Health Studies.

TSCA Incinerator: Jack Hanley said that the TSCA Incinerator had undergone a data validation review by the agencies. ATSDR has addressed the agencies' comments and ATSDR management was reviewing the document for a final time. The document will be released after it goes through clearance. He noted that John Wilhelmi had given three presentations on the PHA and he hoped that Mr. Wilhelmi could provide an overview at the ORRHES meeting. He said that this would offer ORRHES members an opportunity to ask questions and have dialogue about the PHA. ATSDR could address some of the issues at this time. Mr. Hanley noted that James Lewis often feels that they move forward without addressing issues, but they could deal with these issues at this time.

White Oak Creek: Jack Hanley said that the White Oak Creek PHA was sent out again for data validation. He noted that they had seen this document previously, but changes were made based on ORRHES and agency comments. ATSDR is resending the document because EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) had not seen the document during the first data validation period, and his management is now requiring that all documents be sent to ORIA. He explained that the PHA has been improved and many issues have been clarified. After data validation, ATSDR's management will review the PHA and it will be released for public comment.

Current Screening of Contaminants: Jack Hanley said that this PHA has undergone a classification review. Based on this review, ATSDR made a few word changes due to classification issues. The data validation draft is now out for agency comment.

Iodine 131: Jack Hanley explained that Paul Charp has written this document, which is now undergoing an internal staff review. Following this review, the document will be released for data validation by the agencies.

Pete Malmquist asked if this was the PHA that was requesting sampling data, which he had read about in Frank Munger's Knoxville News Sentinel column. Jack Hanley said that DOE and EPA have agreed that if ATSDR can identify any areas that need sampling based on the PHA, then DOE and EPA will decide if sampling is necessary. If so, it would start in 2006. However, Mr. Hanley was unsure how interested the agencies would be in sampling for Iodine 129 because the Iodine 131 (contaminant of concern) is no longer present. Danny Sanders said that this did not make the issue any less significant. Mr. Hanley concurred and stated that this is why ATSDR is making the recommendation.

PCBs and Mercury PHAs: These documents are in internal staff reviews and should undergo data validation between February and March 2005.

Off-Site Groundwater: Jack Hanley explained that this is the only PHA that has not been written. However, ATSDR is currently evaluating this issue.

Discussion of the PHA Release Process

Tony Malinauskas asked how the PHA would be released for comment to ORRHES. Jack Hanley replied that ATSDR planned to release the document 2 weeks before it is released to the public. Dr. Malinauskas asked how they would release the PHA to the work group. Bill Taylor thought that the PHA would be mailed to ORRHES 2 weeks before the meeting, and that ATSDR would provide a brief summary of the document at the ORRHES meeting. He hoped that the document would have been covered to some detail already in the work group, such as today, as they continue to go through the different documents ahead of presenting the written reports. He said that the document, which would be a public comment version, could be sent to the work groups to consider in a focused manner or could be looked at individually.

Kowetha Davidson thought that they would not see the K-25 PHA until 2 weeks before going to the subcommittee. Bill Taylor said that this would be true of all future PHAs. She asked if they would have discussions before other PHAs are released, similar to how they have seen some of the issues with the TSCA Incinerator. Dr. Taylor hoped to handle subsequent PHAs in the same manner, whereas the work group discusses parts of the document before it is released in the public comment version. Jack Hanley said that they definitely plan to do this with future PHAs.

Tony Malinauskas was concerned about getting copies of the PHA to the work groups, since not all work group members are members of ORRHES. Jack Hanley said that he would talk to management about getting the document to these individuals 2 weeks ahead of time. Bill Taylor said that they could have extra copies sent to the Oak Ridge Field Office. Dr. Malinauskas did not think that they necessarily needed the PHA 2 weeks before the ORRHES meeting. He asked if they had 90 days to respond. Mr. Hanley said that they would have about 60 days for the public comment period, but that ATSDR would work with the work groups. Dr. Taylor said that the period is usually 60 days, but that they are usually flexible if parties need more time. Mr. Hanley said that they could make sure that the people who attended meetings with John Wilhelmi received the PHA.

Bill Taylor said that the purpose of the 2-week advance was so that ORRHES members could look at the document and bring questions to the ORRHES meeting. Jack Hanley added that ATSDR would give a presentation at the meeting. Mr. Hanley said that this change was made to address some of the outstanding issues that have been raised.

Kowetha Davidson thought that ORRHES would probably want the work group to review the document and prepare a report for ORRHES at the meeting after it was introduced. Tony Malinauskas said that this should be work groups.

Additional Items

Tony Malinauskas asked that people not bring up items for discussion that are not on the agenda. He said that if people had an issue that they needed to discuss, then they should contact Dr. Malinauskas or Bill Taylor to put the items on the agenda. Jeff Hill suggested that if a member of the public comes to the meeting, then he or she should have an opportunity to speak. Dr. Malinauskas agreed. He had mentioned this because when people bring up issues that are not on the agenda, then other people are unprepared.

Danny Sanders had concerns about funding and how long ATSDR's funding would last. Bill Taylor said that they had to get permission to extend the ORRHES charter, but that this was different than funding within the agency for this project. Beginning this year, Dr. Taylor said that they had "extended the life of ORRHES." Jack Hanley added that the funding for extending the subcommittee's charter was different than funding for PHAs.

Danny Sanders said that it "troubles" him a bit that he has seen acronyms changed and "people come and go." He wanted to know why this was occurring. Jack Hanley explained that the subcommittee changed the work group namesnot ATSDR. Mr. Hanley said that many people have informed ATSDR when they are interested in particular topic areas. He stated that the agency reaches out to many more people than just the subcommittee and that they still used the same e-mail list and mailing list. Mr. Hanley added that anyone who shows an interest in a document will receive a copy. Kowetha Davidson added that operations were basically still the same, but that they had a "realignment under slightly different headings." She noted that the ORRHES was still mandated to undertake the same activities.

Pete Malmquist had spoken with Dee Williamson (ATSDR) about the Cancer Incidence Assessment. Dr. Malmquist explained that someone from the state who Ms. Williamson was working with to obtain data had left, and consequently, it might "be a while" before the assessment would be released.

Tony Malinauskas had asked Susan Kaplan to present on the need for more sampling in the Woodland area, but she was unavailable. He asked if he should put her on the agenda for the next meeting. Bill Taylor would ask Ms. Kaplan.